Talk:Church of the Creator

relevant discussions

Article has been tagged as possible COI and reading as a "news release." Latest updates simply reference the results of on-going trademark litigation. It is this litigation that helps make the article notable, so they are appropriate as included. The article, itself, was crafted by a long-time, well-respected, Wikipedia contributor and its inclusion has been debated at length, with the decision made that it is suitable as written. Green Irish Eyes (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

See [16]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That was archived to Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2014_December_25#Article deleted???. --doncram 18:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And there were:

• a standing request at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Religion#Christianity for article on Church of the Creator, the Oregon church
• a recent discussion split between User talk:Nyttend#"Edit war" and User talk:Bohemian Gal/Archive 1#Re: "Edit war"
• recent discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Everything I do is wrong
• a request for third opinion at third opinions -- see "Active Disagreements" section
• recent treatment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects/2014-12#Redirect_request:_Church_Of_The_Creator_Church_of_the_Creator_Church_of_the_creator
• and back in 2010 there was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Creator

I think this is done now, with a proper article on the church named "Church of the Creator" at its name. Thanks User:Bohemian Gal for hanging in there! --doncram 18:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Name dispute

I think one paragraph on the dispute is enough - we don't need paragraphs on the analysis by legal scholars, no do we need a section devoted to previous litigation and choice of law firm. I will delete those paras and that section.--ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Umm, I think the notability of the Church of the Creator has a bunch to do with the name dispute and its fighting legally, successfully, for trademark of name, and the importance of that is supported by the quotes from legal scholars and other citations. This stuff was important in getting the article established and accepted (at Articles For Creation just now), at Draft:Church of the Creator. Let's not battle, of course, please discuss here. I am done for now though, will come back and see what changes tomorrow maybe. --doncram 18:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ukexpat removed a lot, the following text and eight referenced sources:

According to academic Steven John Olsen, "generic terms can be combined with other generic or more distinctive terms and the resulting composite term may be viewed in the eyes of the relevant public as distinctive and deserving of trademark protection. This was the situation in Te–Ta–Ma, where the court recognized that “church” alone is generic, but “Church of the Creator” is descriptive. The court reasoned that “Church of the Creator” does not denote the class of monotheistic religions or designate a specific religion for which a denomination belongs, but instead acts as a source identifier to differentiate an individual denomination."

According to David A. Simon, covering religious organizations having confusingly similar marks or names but adhering to opposing ideologies, the "most prominent case in this area is Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of the Creator" (Simon, page 265); he notes that "Religious organizations try to combat the actual-perception problem of truth by using lawsuits to maintain their own identity, and thereby maintain their religious authenticity."(Simon, page 265) He judged that "[t]he court found for the Foundation based on trademark principles, but concerns of authenticity played a role in its decision-making process."(Simon, page 267)

The name dispute litigation is cited in other court cases, e.g. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit's 2010 decision on "General Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill".

The case is cited elsewhere, e.g. in a New York City attorney's blog on "Can Religious Symbols Be Trademarked?".

Previous litigation and choice of law firm

The Uris had previous experience with law, in 1992 Oregon appeals court case "Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation v. Vaughan", which involved James Germain Uri, who was not a lawyer, seeking to represent the corporation, which he was not allowed to do. The case was dismissed based on "dilatoriness" of Te-Ta-Ma in pursuing its claim with proper legal representation. In the later name dispute case, by contrast, the church would use the respected international legal firm Kirkland & Ellis.

Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation was in fact specifically noted for having hired an "experienced Chicago law firm" for its trademark case in a 2006 law journal article about attorneys' fees.

References

This material can be considered for restoration to the article, and I would welcome comments, but I am done for today myself. --doncram 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If the Church's claim to notability is a dispute over its name, maybe it really isn't that notable?--ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

suggested improvements

The following two suggestions were posted to my Talk page, and I am just now copying them here for discussion. In general it is fine and good for anyone to make suggestions on this Talk page, about improvements to the Church of the Creator article. If someone is affliated with the organization, they should review wp:COI, and while they are allowed to edit the article, they are especially encouraged to give suggestions here (and they should be willing to discuss here any edits they make to the article itself). Anyhow, consider:

Item 1. (begin copy) I received a message requesting minor corrections to your Church of the Creator article and, given my "noob-ness" here, am reluctant to try them myself. Would you please review and make the edits as you see appropriate? This was suggested as an introductory paragraph:

"Church Of The Creator® is a Christian-based faith organization currently headquartered in Ashland, Oregon. It is an operating name, within public ministry, for TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc. a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, first Chartered on July 14, 1975 as Grace House Prayer Ministry Inc., an unincorporated association established in 1969. "The Foundation" is notable for achieving protection of its Registered Trademark, the name Church Of The Creator® through legal proceedings, and its case is cited in intellectual property law."

Also: If the fact that the name was changed from Grace House Prayer Ministry Inc. to TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc. is considered relevant that date is February 23, 1977 (I've been given a .pdf document verifying the 1977 date, but am not sure if that's verifiable online or not.) (end copy)

Doncram comment on Item 1: Any small grammar fixes or small technical corrections, as implicit here, would be fine by me. I think it is NOT necessary to give the exact month and day of a name change, and in general the lead paragraph should be a general summary (probably is discussed at wp:LEDE?) and should not have picky details. Details, and corresponding sources, should be in later paragraphs and sections. Also, you are welcome to use an off-line source and to cite that as usual (e.g. with title, author, date, etc. where possible). Wikipedia welcomes use of print resources; all info should be verifiable, somehow, but verification does not have to be easy, and online sourcing is not at all required! To some extent, we should wp:AGF Assume Good Faith that an editor is correctly interpreting an off-line document that they have in hand. --doncram 00:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Further, I did edit the lead paragraph somewhat, but am unclear on the facts and on what is documented, so I don't think the intro is "done". Again, in general detailed facts should be covered and supported by footnotes later in the article. The "lede" (Wikipedia jargon) is a summary and might have no footnotes at all. It should be written as an overview of the article, and perhaps shouldn't be refined too much until the rest of the article is in pretty good, stable shape. Some dates and other matters don't matter a whole lot, also: we don't have to be TOO detailed in an encyclopedia article; there should be more detail available in linked sources for really interested readers, that does not need to be included. --doncram 22:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Item 2. (begin copy / somewhat edited by me)

In addition to the requested edits posted today relative first paragraph edits to Church Of The Creator, one other fact may or may not be relevant to Wikipedia, balanced edits.

•Church Of The Creator was first legally established as an ABN-Assumed Business Name, through registration by The Foundation with the State of Oregon, August 3, 1982, "Active," continuously since that date.

Online via search, current public records, Oregon Secretary Of State OR -, at this login webpage, enter: Church Of The Creator. This provides current verification in part: " Entity Name CHURCH OF THE CREATOR / Registry Nbr 255871-55 / Entity Type ABN / Entity Status ACT Registry Date 08-03-1982 / Next Renewal Date 08-03-2015"

If this method or correcting facts is helpful, I can provide small file jpg or other file types of verification documentation as sent Bohemian Gal. (end copy)

Doncram comment on item 2: Thanks for providing this clarification. As per my response to item 1, super detail like for exact dates is probably not needed, and not every detail needs to be sourced by online info. Thanks for providing info on how the ABN can be verified online; your providing a picture file of that is not needed. In fact only details that are possibly controversial or questionable need to be sourced, if they are not challenged, is my general understanding. I guess what this item provides is clarification that the usage of the Church of the Creator name legally started in 1982, and that is worth mentioning with the source given, because the usage of the name was in fact disputed legally later. I made an edit to try to clarify about that. Feel free, anyone, to improve upon my edit. Thanks! --doncram 00:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question: The article currently states "It took its current name in 1974."

"Church of the Creator". World Knowledge Library.

That was about the church's use of the "Church of the Creator" name. Is that incorrect? Did the church start using the name in 1982? I understand it legally registered the name in 1982, but I don't know if it started using the name earlier, e.g. in 1974 (per "Masterliness" / Worlk Knowledge Library source). I don't know if it matters terribly. --doncram 01:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Doncram. Use of name Church Of The Creator - Addressing here, and clarify understanding in talk section “capitalization” of “URI” and name “TE-TA-MA”. First, unlike Wikipedia process of becoming notable, written by third parties, then referenced using third parties, please understand, the process of “receivership”, a heart process, heavens to earth. The Founder’s experience, process may also be understood as an Epiphany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany_(feeling) That process began in 1969. Church archives contain many hand written pages of the experience, “received” concepts and conceptualizations. Many of those experiences were published by the Foundation, as a book, “Space of Grace” copyright registration# A 928860, December 27, 1977. "Parables in Prose - 33 Poems - Spiritual experiences, shared Expressions from the Heart. An Initiatory Road Map" http://www.wcotc.com/detail.aspx?ID=12

Within the poem “Universal Family” one line reads “This the Church of Our Creator” formalizing many aspects of the “Epiphany” wherein she experience many visitations, tangible materialization of beings, visions, dreams, and other experiences that were encoding understanding, history on a grand scale, and the mission she was being requested to embrace. The name was first written down in 1974, compiled with other material, published 1977, of record. Those are facts relative first use of the name, within the prose.

The names Teave, Tane, Marama, were given, “received” in a similar fashion without research or reference, and published within the poem/prose titled, “MU OUR HOMELAND” Space of Grace, “Myriad Children of The Rainbow You Are Beloved of Thy Parent Thou Art All Colors, Moving In Moving Out, Iridescent Art Thou For Now Is The Recognition That Is Come Into Your Memory, of Whom, You Are and From Whence Thou Came, The Sun, Tane, Thy Beloved Father Marama, The Moon, Thy Gentle Mother Divine In Their Vows To Bring The Children of The Rainbow Home Once Again Recognize Thy Worth Oh Children of The Earth Conceived In The Garden And Allowed By The Love of The One Thine Own Self-Will Restrict Not Thy Vision The True Vastness of Thy Being Stand Tall And Receive The Radiance As Again, A New Nation Comes Forth Re-Instated, To Thy Rightful Place All That Is Asked of Thee, Know Thy-Self Know Who You Are U R I end quote

Hope this brings understanding of how, origins of the Mission "Sacred Mandate" [copyright A 895182 September 19, 1977] of the Foundation, Church Of The Creator was received and anchored. This process is not unique to Grace Marama URI. In science Nikola Tesla is a good example of someone who understood, receivership and was commissioned to anchor the future, only now being better understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla. Edgar Cayce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce, understood accessing, receiving, recording information from other off planet sources, while “asleep”. That offered him protection from practicing medicine without a license. There are many other examples, and science is now finding that the 80% junk DNA, is not junk, encoding within us, including accessing memory, experience, information from our ancestors. Not every human being has been given access. Grace Marama URI, had many user IDs and passwords, for other dimension of her lineage. All Humans are Divine in Origin, Image & Similitude and more and more are recognizing the process. TE-TA-MA, roots are further discussed “trinity TE TA MA links” Michael S. Legions (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Illustrations for the article

At the official website of the Church of the Creator, there's an image perhaps "COTC_DoveStar_Seal_TM_Design.JPG" which would be good to incorporate into this article. If someone from the church could make it available for use in Wikipedia, by uploading it at commons.wikimedia.org, following instructions there, that would be great. You would not have to put the image into the public domain for it to be used. It is common for corporate logos to be used at articles about the corporations, without loss of their copyright or anything. I am not completely sure on the process for limited usage of copyrighted materials. But if there are questions, volunteers with the Wikipedia confidential email-based service called "wp:OTRS" could assist in arranging uploading and setting the properly restricted permissions.

Also, could someone upload a photo or two of the Church of the Creator's main building(s), to commons.wikimedia.org. That would help illustrate the article, too. --doncram 22:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have uploaded a graphic, that conveys and expands understanding of "Church" and "Creator" as claimed and delivered through this organization. Perhaps it will be useful within current revision to the Article page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Church_Of_The_Creator_-_Planet_Earth_It%27s_Systems_-_Designated_Affilate_Temple_Of_The_Holy_Trinity.jpg Michael S. Legions (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As requested, to avoid COI conflict, your request has been received, and I will follow instruction as provided above. The specific "COTC_DoveStar_Seal_TM_Design.JPG" is currently, along with the rest of online publication under revision from page generating software to a CMS publishing format. However as an authorized officer of the corporation, I will bring the request to the attention of the Board of Directors, and feel certain of authorization to provide essentially the same logo/refined, notice, etc. as requested. Upon upload you will be notified here. Thank you. Michael S. Legions (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, --doncram 05:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Church Of The Creator® Dove/Star Seal Logo, was uploaded today. File name: Church_Of_The_Creator®_Logo_Wikipedia_Use©® 01-07-2015_581wx586hpixls.jpg

Descriptive Information associated to Church Of The Creator® Logo is provided below, as an Officer/Director/Co-Founder, placed upon the “talk” table for consideration of those responsible for the expressions of Wikipedia, as a collaborator, not an editor and without expectations as to what is considered relevant to the page/postings. The following is accurate to the best of my ability to track 40 years of service to humanity, within The Foundation. If further clarifications are needed, please let me know. Thank you.

Logo is composed in two parts. First: Trademarked Name and Official Seal as described and defined within: Ecclesia Magna Charta, ARTICLE IV SEAL: “Church Of The Creator® shall have as an Official Seal, a Six Pointed Star Grid, supporting and manifesting the Descending/Ascending Energy of the Holy Spirit Shekinah, Our Divine Mother, represented as a Dove, sustaining through the Holy Breath, this Planet Earth, held within Its Heart and uplifting this Planetary Sphere and Its Systems to their rightful place in the Heavens.” COTC Ecclesia Magna Charta, Organizing Document setting forth purpose, function, governance etc. of Church Of The Creator® © 1984. First published in part 1982, revised, completed, published as printed 18 page booklet, © 1984 with graphics as Appendix I & II.

The graphic COTC Dove/Star Seal was part of the registered copyright, by TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, #TX 945-318 COTC Associate Minister Certificate, March 9, 1982, verifiable via USPTO copyright search, copyrights held by TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc.

The second component of the Logo is the registered trademark Divine Right Order®, understood to be a Divine Dispensation, issued in 1969, defined, for use by humanity to bring change:

“The Decree Divine Right Order® is a tool of consciousness: an instrument of affirmation which assists in co-creating in the Image and Similitude of The One Parent Creator Source. This vibrational harmonic, WHEN SPOKEN, resonates and sets into motion Cosmic and Divine Law, an automatic alignment to manifestation of Heaven on Earth, Highest Truth and Justice for the WHOLE of Creation; Unified Movement in at-one-ment to the Perfection of the Seed Atom of our Parent Creator; Asking for Divine Wisdom in being the instrument that only the Highest Truth manifest in Love; Divine Right Order® shall allow only Truth to manifest, Justice reign supreme, and Love to bring forth Harmony, Liberty, Freedom and Peace, United in Christ. D I V I N E Dedicated Individuals Viably Interconnecting New Endeavors R I G H T Redemptive Infusion God's Higher Truths O R D E R® Overself Restoration Degeneration Eternally Redeemed Faith can be acting without the consciousness mind understanding or needing proof. Acts of faith come from the heart, from knowing and acting on belief. Understanding of faith as a Divine Principle, can be applied daily and can have direct affect upon our planetary evolution and beyond. The tool of Divine Right Order,® when coupled with faith, move mountains. Cyclical programs, multi-levels of evolution unfolding before and within us need our nurturing and care. Our thoughts, words and deeds count. From the most obvious watering and weeding that must be done in every garden, to the more subtle discernment necessary to nurturing the gardens of consciousness, the weeding of thought forms, the seeding of love through action implanted in daily living, unconditional love and wisdom can be applied to every circumstance of life. Technically, mankind is advancing like a rocket. Satellites, cell phones, global electronic networks, computers based on silicon chips. Transmissions of energy on many frequencies proliferate and permeate our living environment. Sound waves, microwaves, light waves, alpha waves, beta waves, the list is endless and countless. Some energy waves need a fixed media to travel, like a wire, the electrical systems that we depend upon for conveniences in our homes. Some transmissions of energy penetrate and pass through the very structures of what many call reality, the three dimensional atomic structure of molecules and atoms. Lasers and X Rays go through some structures and impact others. When we are listening on a cellular phone, how many broadcasts are we actually receiving? Can thought forms ride on a radio wave? When we are connected on the internet, the world wide web, are we receiving only what is on the screen of our monitor or do we perhaps unperceptively get everything that is connected? Is our complex brain and nerve system which we use so little of and know so little about, affected by the growing complexities of our own creations? When using radio wave technology, it is easy for others to listen without us knowing. Is it just as true that we are unconsciously receiving broadcasts, being affected without knowing it ourselves? Can we really be isolated from the broadcast by turning a switch? How far and how many have and will be affected by the unseen, untasted, unheard, radiations of energy from our creations like Chernobyl? We certainly do not have the answers to all these questions. It would be nice to know, but total understanding isn't necessary to do something constructive. First, we can clean up our own creations and broadcasts of thoughts, words and deeds. Then we can offer up our small effort for who we represent. We all have families. We all have birthdays, let it count for everyone who has that common thread. Let it count for everyone with the same zodiac sign. Let it count for everyone who has a computer, for everyone who uses a word processor, just like we are doing this very moment. Jesus is the example, ONE represents all, everyone gets the benefit of his conscious application of Divine Law. He did it for everyone he represented, and so can you. It is Divine law and principle, however, it must be consciously applied to work. Jesus knew what he was doing. He chose to drink the whole cup. After cleaning up our own act, offering ourselves, our lives for those we represent, what can we do? How do we make our efforts count to the greatest possible good? How do we know from the perspective of our human beingness what needs fixing? Ask to do the job and the circumstances will find you. When you are living daily in this cosmic consciousness of service, you are already united with others in the Christ Body. Your actions no longer have the weight of the one, but carry the impact of the many. The knowledge of what needs fixing isn't necessary. When any part of you has even the slightest doubt, the slightest discernment, that this particular circumstance is tainted with anything other than the Divine Blueprint, affirm Divine Right Order.® This verbal affirmation, when spoken automatically activates change and calls upon those who do know if there is any tampering with your broadcast and receiving systems. From Your Lips To God's Ear Divine Right Order® calls upon our Creator and his many legions of Justice Beings to act in our behalf, to clear out, clean up and make right anything associated to circumstances not in harmony with Divine Law, Divine Will. You may not see the change, it may benefit others. You may face seemingly similar circumstances again, because you can be counted upon to ask for help, to affirm Divine Right Order,® for unknown reasons. That is part of being of service. Some of those who do the most good receive the least direct benefit. Divine Right Order® is your password to a Divine Network, legions of Angelic Host and Cosmic Beings just waiting for us to ask. And when we do, a great housecleaning and accounting takes place on multiple levels, things are placed straight. We only have to do our part in the Earth planes of consciousness. Those broadcasting, hi-tec or otherwise, interfering with humanities desire to live in peace are being held accountable. Your love, your being the representative, your asking and using the tool of Divine Right Order® helps get the job done." Above published on line http://www.churchofthecreator.com/divinerightorder.html and within other printed publications of The Foundation.

Also referenced by EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge: published by the United States Circuit Court Of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Opinion, July 25, 2002, describing Church Of The Creator® after review of hundreds of pages of documentation, Case No. 02-1381, verifiable by many online references.

“…Church of the Creator (the operating name of TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation—Family of URI, Inc.) believes in universal love and respect. Its Sacred Mandate reads:

CHURCH OF THE CREATOR®
Supports the Family Unification of Mankind
In All Aspects Of The Whole.
We of Like Mind Join Harmoniously In
Oneness, Knowing That There Is Only
One Creator Source.
The Many In One Dedicate Our Physical
Embodiments To The God Expression
In Form, Bringing Forth By Example
To This Planet Earth
Love, Light and Peace.
Therefore, Once Decreeing
DIVINE RIGHT ORDER®
In All Thoughts – All Things, Our
Universe Automatically Aligns Into
Manifestation of Heaven On Earth.
Through The Priesthood of Melchizedek
We Are One In The Body Of Jesus Christ.
As Above So Below.

The Church’s web site http://www.churchofthecreator.com/divinerightorder.html provides additional details, including the text of the Divine Right Order…”

The Sacred Mandate may also be described as the Mission Statement of Church Of The Creator®. Published with further clarifications at: http://www.churchofthecreator.com/sacredmandate.html

If you need my assistance, further references, verifications, please advise.

Please use the Graphic Logo, the above information as wisdom of the heart guides us, to further our common goal of clear communication, cooperation, access for all people to truth. Thank you. Michael S. Legions (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the logo file and thank you for the additional information here! The image is now used in the article. Your additional information here is possibly helpful for interpretation, possibly just here or possibly in the article. I see there is a request at the image file that it be replaced by a lower resolution image, because it is a non-free image and I gather that lower resolution versions are more clearly "fair use" allowable under copyright law. However it appears that will be dealt with automatically: "In most cases, this reduction will occur automatically: simply wait 24 hours and a robot will resize the image file." Also it is noted there that an image with transparent background would be preferred to the image uploaded, which has an opaque white background I guess. I suppose this is better for Wikipedia readers who opt for a non-white background in their user viewing preferences? To Michael S. Legions, I think you mentioned something about image files being updated soon by the organization's computer support; perhaps you could request that they make a transparent background version if possible. I think that is not crucial however, knock on wood, I think the uploaded image (to be replaced by a lower-resolution version) is accepted. Thanks! --doncram 18:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

capitalization of "Uri" and "Te-Ta-Ma"

I don't think this is a big issue, but I am a little confused on the usage of "Uri" vs. "URI", and also about "Te-Ta-Ma" vs. "TE-TA-MA". Right now in the article, by my own editing I guess, there is "Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation - Family of Uri Inc." and also "TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation - Family of URI Inc". My bad, maybe. Is the last name of the family "Uri" or "URI"? One usage should probably be adopted throughout the article and its infobox. With possible exception that "incorrect" usage by others, in a title of a court proceeding or in a direct quote, should not be changed. --doncram 18:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the help in getting the COTC Dove/Star Seal Logo anchored on the page. The established correct capitalizations are TE-TA-MA and URI. Thank you for noticing. If you would like me to make corrections/edits, little adjustments of that nature I can do so, and provide additional information, and references in talk.

Otherwise the TE-TA-MA within the name of The Fondation are the first two letters in pre Polynesian traditions that represent the names of the Holy Trinity, Divine Deity, Teave - Tane - Marama. Further reference available on request. The last name is all caps URI, established as capitals by Court Order, is also symbolic of the understanding that we are all cells within one body - HUMANITY - as a Whole. URI-IRU - we are all individual reflections of each other. Fathers Mothers Sons Daughters Sisters Brothers Mates - different aspects of Family as held within the blueprint of The Holy Trinity/Divine Deity. Divine Family - to Human Family the blueprint of creation. Hence, a symbol of Our Oneness - URI. There are some additional corrections. Rev. Dr. Grace Marama URI (1932- 2006) 2002 is incorrect. Under Logo: Please Add: Rev. Dr. Angela Magdalene URI, current President of the Foundation, Co-President COTC. Those are the types of edits I can do if within the COI policy, or just give them to you, when asked, one at a time as the article is refined. Trying to get it accurate as a start. Again Thank you and I will see to a replacement graphic with transparent background in due timing. Michael S. Legions (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Doncram, I made the spellings edits TE-TA-MA and URI, that seemed to take fine. I also tried to add another Key Person Angela Magdalene URI, current Foundation President, Director, Co-President of Church Of The Creator® but that did not seem to take on the first try. This edit was part of the box information under the logo. Perhaps you can correct whatever I did not do correctly on that one. Thanks again. Michael S. Legions (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Second try to add Key Person, worked. thank you.Michael S. Legions (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(after edit conflict (EC)): Actually i think you got it right eventually. Thanks! Those seem like small factual edits fine by me for you to do directly, especially after explaining here, thanks. Hmm, by the way, trying wikilinks: Teave, Tane, Marama, not sure if those will be redlinks or bluelinks after i hit "return". --doncram 01:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

trinity TE TA MA links

Well, I think it would improve the article if we could explain the church's use of the term TE-TA-MA, preferably including links to coverage elsewhere about the three. Are there Wikipedia articles (or should articles be started?) on the trinity of what you mean by the "pre-Polynesian" Teave, Tane, and Marama? I find Category:Polynesian deities. Are there any items within that category or its subcategories that correspond to these three? And, if there is no corresponding article, then we've bumped into an under-developed area of wikipedia maybe, where you could possibly help... --doncram 03:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Doncram – Having experienced within the “Epiphany” many aspects of human history, another aspect of the Founders experience was understanding that the spoken word, language, was a step down from telepathic communication as part of the “Alpha”, starting point of human expression. The first spoken language, and the Trinity as expressed within that language were known as Teave, Tane, Marama, as well as other names. Later within the process, having the names, while in a book store, a book literally jumped off the shelf, landed on the floor.

Searching using todays tools, I can only find, as used the publication, “CHILDREN OF THE RAINBOW” “A book concerning the religion, legends and gods of the natives of pre-Christian Hawaii” by LEINANI MELVILLE, A QUEST BOOK, The Theosophical Publishing House, © 1969, Library of Congress Catalog Number 69-17715. To my understanding this is the “Creation Story” including the names of the Trinity/Divine Deity, Teave, Tane, Marama, and was a witness to the names as given earlier, as part of the encoding being received by the Founder. Also today, searching these names, I found a “new book” The Lost Civilization of Lemuria - The Rise and Fall of the World’s Oldest Culture, By Frank Joseph, which is described as “A compelling new portrait of the lost realm of Lemuria, the original motherland of humanity • Contains the most extensive and up-to-date archaeological research on Lemuria • Reveals a lost, ancient technology in some respects more advanced than modern science • Provides evidence that the perennial philosophies have their origin in Lemurian culture." See more at: http://books.simonandschuster.com/The-Lost-Civilization-of-Lemuria/Frank-Joseph/9781591430605#sthash.EHE4S2XT.dpuf .

This may help you, Wikipedia re new sections. For The Foundation, it is another witness to the roots, validity, Mission – The Family Unification Of Mankind, as we are now completing the “Omega” return to the “Alpha” of Human Experience, collectively, as we are preparing to move on to Peace, Harmony, WE not me consciousness of a New Heavens and New Earth. Hope this will clarify support. Michael S. Legions (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't receall when i ever heard of "Lemuria". In Wikipedia there is Lemuria (continent) and Lemuria in popular culture articles, which perhaps should be merged. I do recall learning about Madagascar - India commonalities of animals and land, which apparently contributed to the theory. Searching both articles, I see no mention of Frank Joseph. Seems like his book ought to be included in Lemuria in popular culture#Literature or used as a source or mentioned in a "further reading" section. You could gives some info and suggest this book at Talk:Lemuria in popular culture, perhaps. That would be one small way to branch out in contributing in Wikipedia. :). --doncram 00:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church of the Creator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027032845/http://www.churchofthecreator.org/TM/USSupremeCourtCertiorariDenied01-13-03.pdf to http://www.churchofthecreator.org/TM/USSupremeCourtCertiorariDenied01-13-03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Article issues

Per my recent tagging:

• The ® Trademark litigation and "Ripple Effect" section in particular is largely original research/synthesis of primary sources.
• The article is written more like an organizational website than a neutral encyclopedia article.
• Seriously, it goes out of its way to call another organization racist. That's a little much.

creffett (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Good God, that went between press release and just utterly impenetrable word salad. I've removed most of it; some of the sources used might be okay, but the parts that should be in the article will need a total rewrite. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't fully reviewed the cumulative changes to this article, but I was involved back in 2014 or so. One needs to understand that there was (is?) in fact an entirely evil white supremacist / indeed awful and racist organization which took a similar name to this benign church. And there was notable litigation, which led to a state of Illinois(?) supreme court ruling that the racist organization could no longer use the similar/overlapping name. Maybe they were shut down entirely, through fines and what not, i don't recall now. And then this benign organization suffered within Wikipedia, by obnoxious/perverse editing which imposed a redirect from the name of the benign church to the evil racist one. It was truly awful, and mean, in total, what Wikipedia was doing, supposedly on basis that the evil racist one was notable, and the benign one should be covered within the article about the evil racist one. That was really mean. I helped get this article re-established, with goal that it should positively cover the good organization to an appropriate degree, including with some mention of the naming conflict and litigation. And it is proper to mention the racism/white supremacy of the evil one, explicitly.

So, then it is natural that the organization is a bit obsessed about trademarks and distinguishing themselves from the evil organization. I am not surprised that since 2014 the article was edited along those lines. But I agree with Seraphimblade's edits, at least for the most part, to reduce down the coverage of this. It had gotten too detailed and was excessive for an encylopedia article. Also it was perhaps confusing and had too much jargon that probably make sense to those close to the organization, but doesn't make much sense for a general wikipedia article.

I will take a bit more of a look, but I think the current article is probably nearly okay, and the negative tags should be removed. To the recent Wikipedia editors/taggers, please be aware that there has in fact been injustice in the real world and within Wikipedia against this benign church. So do let's avoid being too harsh with an editor or two who are trying to do the right thing here, though they may not fully grok all the Wikipedia technical policies and all that. --Doncram (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oi. That's a bad situation indeed, and I'm very glad to hear the law was on their side. I certainly agree there's enough coverage of what happened to show this one is notable in its own right. The trademark dispute seems to have been a very significant event in the organization's history, and we certainly should cover it in the article, but quite honestly a lot of the text that was there was more or less indecipherable. I can try to take a look at the sources that were there, and see if we can't get something put together in regards to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

sources, material potentially to be restored/replaced in some form

Some sources and ideas in deleted passages maybe should be restored or replaced in some way. I copy into here (hopefully without garbling too much) the deleted passages and sources, below. User:Seraphimblade, perhaps these can be discussed by comments inserted below each one? My views are not fixed, but I do think some expanded treatment of the notable litigation at least is appropriate (and good sources should exist), and some expanded coverage of the tenets and beliefs of the Church of the Creator maybe should be added (though sources independent of the church itself may be thin, and it may be hard to present this stuff in encyclopedic manner). Maybe readers should be directed more strongly to external links about the latter, I am not sure. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

As an overview, relative passages considered for restoration or replacement. First I have failed to respond to your prior request. “Also, could someone upload a photo or two of the Church of the Creator's main building(s), to commons.wikimedia.org. That would help illustrate the article, too. --doncram 22:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)” Your request illustrates assumptions that most people would make in relation to the use of the word “church.” However, our organization does not have a main building(s). I can and will upload a graphic, for inclusion in the revised article that illustrates a “distinctive” understanding, unique to this organization. The words, conceptualization, message being delivered to humanity, is “Planet Earth and its Systems has been Designated as a Temple of The Holy Trinity.” In other words, within the Spiritual/Universal processes of Creation as a Whole, our planet, it’s systems has been given a name “Church Of The Creator.” The illustration will be uploaded as requested, but may be found here https://www.churchofthecreator.com/mission/351-images-church-of-the-creator This is not a new concept, but central to understanding this organization, current Talk discussion. See Wikipedia "New_Earth_(Christianity)" I will be posting to other “discussion” sections below. Michael S. Legions (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggest opening sentence, paragraph be changed to: Church of the Creator is a subsidiary organization of TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc., a California nonprofit public-benefit corporation., It grew from a church association established in 1969 as Grace House Prayer Ministry, Inc., Chartered on July 14, 1975. The name of the corporation was changed in 1976, restructured in 1977. The Foundation within public ministries….[the rest of the opening statements of Article page remains as currently written] Michael S. Legions (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyhow, deleted passages, sources include:

summary about litigation and labelling other organization as racist

• "This notable litigation, US Court Of Appeals OPINIONs included review of "name...genus" of religions, constitutional rights, intellectual property rights, re-defining what is unacceptable, "Vexatious litigation conduct.""
• "That racist group is now known as the "Creativity Alliance" and is not associated with the Oregon-based church." (the word "racist" and the source following it were deleted; IMHO it will proper to identify the white supremacist organization that way, though the wording and sourcing needs to be good --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC))

Discuss notable litigation and racist label?

• The Wikipedia article on Creativity (religion) includes flat statement "Creators are taught to hate non-whites and to avoid interacting with them socially." And it labels the group as Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and other things. Assuming sourcing there is good, here terming them as "racist" seems mild, perhaps even charitable, though probably needs an explicit reference footnote or two drawn from that article's sources, or perhaps better an extended "note"-type footnote immediately following. --Doncram (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggested modification to opening paragraph of Article page: Church of the Creator is a subsidiary organization of TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc., a California nonprofit public-benefit corporation., It grew from a church association established in 1969 as Grace House Prayer Ministry, Inc., Chartered on July 14, 1975. The name of the corporation was changed in 1976, restructured in 1977. The Foundation within public ministries….[the rest of the opening statements of Article page remains as currently written] Michael S. Legions (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Tenets, principles and practices

• Long passage in section "Tenets, principles and practices" following reference to Chryssides (whom I think is an independent and reliable source) was stripped down to just: "Chryssides describes the church as having been founded in 1969 "by Dr. Grace Marama URI (1932-2006) and her husband, the Rev. Dr. James Germain URI."

What was removed is:

• • According to Chryssides "There is one creative source of all being, with which humanity must align so that all thoughts all things become the manifestation of heaven on earth. "Love, Light and peace" are three key values. It is believed that intergalactic communicators can be summoned to act on humanity's behalf. Of particular assistance is a "tool of consciousness" known as "Divine Right Order®" is explained as an acronym for "Dedicated Individuals Viably Interconnecting New Endeavors; Redemptive Infusion God's Higher Truths; Overself Restoration Degeneration Eternally Redeemed."
  • Membership of the COTC includes all people and is by self-recognition. A member is one who accepts the Sacred Mandate, affirming the oneness of the universe's creative source and the aim of achieving the Divine Right Order in all things, thus securing the alignment between heaven and earth."
  • Church Organization, Beliefs, through exhibits submitted to the US 7th Circuit Court were reviewed in detail. Judge Easterbrook in the opening statements of the Court Of Appeals OPINION: sets forth the "Treatise Of Joining In Principal and Witness", claim of membership described above by Cryssides, "Sacred Mandate" - Church Of The Creator® Supports the Family Unification of Mankind In All Aspects Of The Whole. We of Like Mind Join Harmoniously In Oneness, Knowing That There Is Only One Creator Source. The Many In One Dedicate Our Physical Embodiments To The God Expression In Form, Bringing Forth By Example To This Planet Earth Love, Light and Peace. Therefore, Once Decreeing DIVINE RIGHT ORDER® In All Thoughts-All Things, Our Universe Automatically Aligns Into Manifestation of Heaven On Earth. Through The Priesthood of Melchizedek We Are One In The Body Of Jesus Christ. As Above So Below." The Court further described this church as "descriptive" "distinctive not generic" stating ""Church of the Creator" as a denominational name leaves ample options for other sects to distinguish themselves and achieve separate identities.

Suggest shorten to: Frank H. Easterbrook in an appellate court opinion, writes "Church of the Creator (the operating name of TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family of URI, Inc.) "believes in universal love and respect."   Its Sacred Mandate reads: “Church of the Creator, Supports the Family Unification of Mankind In All Aspects Of The Whole. We of Like Mind Join Harmoniously In Oneness, Knowing That There Is Only One Creator-Source. The Many In One Dedicate Our Physical Embodiments To The God Expression In Form, Bringing Forth By Example To This Planet Earth Love, Light and Peace. Therefore, Once Decreeing DIVINE RIGHT ORDER In All Thoughts-All Things, Our Universe Automatically Aligns Into Manifestation of Heaven On Earth. Through The Priesthood of Melchizedek We Are One In The Body Of Jesus Christ. As Above So Below.” The court found "this church is "descriptive" "distinctive not generic" stating "Church of the Creator" as a denominational name leaves ample options for other sects to distinguish themselves and achieve separate identities." Michael S. Legions (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• • COTC's Principle and Practice, use of the Decree "Divine Right Order®" is defined within the Ascension Glossary, "Stating Divine Right Order essentially means the evocation of the true spiritual law to be made present in all that governs time and space, and through one's own personal intent and consent, they are choosing the authority of Gods Natural Laws to be made manifested within their consciousness and throughout their creations.
  • The delineation that is being made when invoking Divine Right Order is made through the statement, "not my will, but divine will", which is deferring to the highest expression that is possible in every moment. This also means the comprehension that the person that is asking for divine right order is acting upon their own Self-Determination, and the Law of Intent, in so to resolve the authority problem between the Negative Ego and the higher relationship they have with their inner spirit and God expression. It is a choice that is being made to relinquish ones personal control and will, releasing perceptions of needs and desires, with the consent to defer to the natural laws in Divine Right Order."
  • The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality, states: "Church of the Creator, Grace Marama URI – Ashland, OR: A NEW AGE group founded in 1969 as Grace House Prayer Ministry after URI, in an altered state of consciousness, was ordained into the Order, Brotherhood, and Priesthood of Melchizedek by the archangel Michael. In the mid -1970's the name was changed to Church of the Creator. The group teaches that members should develop their CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS and uplift humanity through the vibrational energy of the Feminine Principle. URI teaches that Jesus Christ is the Lifestream of Michael, and that the HOLY SPIRIT is the Divine Mother. In 1973 -74 the Cross released KARMA and allowed members to experience the New Birth."

Suggest shorten to: James K. Walker in the concise guide to today’s religions and spirituality states the founder, “in an altered state of consciousness, was ordained into the Order, Brotherhood, and Priesthood of Melchizedek by the archangel Michael.” And further writes “The group teaches that members should develop their CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS and uplift humanity through the vibrational energy of the Feminine Principle. URI teaches that Jesus Christ is the Lifestream of Michael, and that the HOLY SPIRIT is the Divine Mother. In 1973 -74 the Cross released KARMA and allowed members to experience the New Birth.” Michael S. Legions (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss tenets, practices?

Acknowledging “sources independent of the church itself may be thin” the above deleted quotations from “…George Chryssides become more important in providing unique distinctive facts “Tenets, principles and practices” sufficient to be listed within the quoted referenced independent source.

The same conclusion relative unique, distinctive, descriptive nature of the Tenets, principles and practices, after review of hundreds of pages, Organizing Documents of the Foundation/Church is of record online. Published, independent sources, OPINIONS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion) , of Circuit, Appeal, Supreme Court, of the US. Concluding in part “Unlike the district court, we conclude that this phrase is descriptive rather than generic.  …Contemporary usage does not treat “Church of the Creator” as the name for monotheistic religion-or any other genus of religion…. In the contemporary United States, variations on “Church of [Deity]” are used to differentiate individual denominations, not to denote the class of all religions.   The list is considerable:  Church of God;  Church of God (Anderson, Indiana);  First Church of God;  Worldwide Church of God (see Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir.2000));  Church of God in Christ;  Assembly of God;  Korean Assembly of God;  Church of the Nazarene;  Church of Christ;  United Church of Christ;  Disciples of Christ;  Church of Christ, Scientist;  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.   There is room for extension with Church of Our Savior, Church of the Holy Spirit, Church of the Holy Trinity, Church of Jehovah, and so on.   Yet all of these are recognizable as denominational names, not as the designation of the religion to which the denominations belong.   No Jewish, Islamic, Baha'i, or Unitarian group would say that it belongs to a “Church of the Creator”;  and a Christian congregation would classify itself first into its denomination (e.g., Baptist, Lutheran, Russian Orthodox, Society of Friends), then into one of the major groupings (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant), and finally into Christianity, but never into a “Church of the Creator. …“Church of the Creator” as a denominational name leaves ample options for other sects to distinguish themselves and achieve separate identities.” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1260486.html See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

The OPINOINS also publish specific Tenets unique to this organization. Already quoted in TALK above, “Sacred Mandate - complete text,” and “including the text of the Divine Right Order.” Both of the independent sources cite those two Tenets, which are also principles and practices, something every human may use, apply in their own unique ways within their individual and collective expressions. Both Tenets are expressed as images, that can be uploaded, and as Videos, that were External Links to YouTube Channels.

Relative Divine Right Order. Here are two external links. Reference bullet #4 above, Ascension Glossary. And result of searching the phrase on Google. Wikipedia, "...this is a of measuring the importance..." Michael S. Legions (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

To supplement the thin independent sources, perhaps review of two short documents, legally anchored, accepted and recorded within the independent sources, Secretary of State, CA, other state and Federal archives. For easy access, COTC Ecclesia Magna Charta, TE-TA-MA Articles of Faith and Constitution Perhaps supportive to clarity, unique to this Article page, a summary by an appropriate Wikipedia editor may support Wikipedia users. Michael S. Legions (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Legal structure and registrations

• An entire section titled "Legal structure, registrations" was removed. It was previously:
  • "In addition to California Charter and other US State Registrations as a foreign nonprofit corporation, the Foundation received U.S. Internal Revenue Service ruling of non-profit status in 1978, and GEN-Group Tax Exemption Determination in 1985, including Church Of The Creator. It is also known as "TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation - Family of URI Inc." and as Family of URI and Church of the Creator. As a church, it is not required to make annual financial filings.
  • "The URI family included, of court records D'Angelica Mariam URI, James Germain URI, and Grace Marama URI.
  • "The church holds registered trademarks for "Church of the Creator", for "Divine Right Order", for "Human Software For Being", and for "URI".
  • "In addition to the USPTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office Registration, the Foundation has an Active Registered Trademark, "Church Of The Creator®" within the European Union Trademark Registration rules and procedures, completed July 17, 2001.

Discuss legal structure and registrations?

Offhand, the title for section makes it sound boring, and I am not sure this is needed to exist separately. The Church's ownership of copyrights and trademarks can/should be clear implicitly, and/or mentioned explicitly, in discussion of the litigation. --Doncram (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

If the suggested change to the opening paragraph, Article page, posted within discussion above, (summary about litigation and labeling other organization as racist) is adopted, then Legal structure and registrations section could be deleted. The legal structure would be correct, clarified immediately, the verifiable parent, subsidiary, relationship between TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc. and Church Of The Creator. The current opening “Church of the Creator is a New Age-based faith organization” is truncated, an incorrect classification, and this or other such characterizations, classifications, might best be included in the Tenets, principles and practices Section.

As suggested, anything relative Trademarks or other registrations could be included under Trademark and ripple effects section.Michael S. Legions (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Trademark litigation and "ripple effect"

• The entire section "Trademark litigation and "Ripple Effect"" was deleted. It previously was:
  • "Suffering from confusion in the public mind and being mistaken, blamed, as responsible for despicable acts of violence, racial hatred, murder, and the publicity associated to such acts, the Foundation initiated litigation to protect its ® Registered Trademark Church Of The Creator.® A Complaint for Trademark Infringement, was filed in the United States District Court For The Northern District of Illinois on May 2, 2002.
  • "While the Church of the Creator was headquartered in Ashland, Oregon, by 2000 it had ministries in 20 states, not including Illinois. It reportedly "said the similar names and trademarks have left the mistaken impression that their church endorses [the Creativity Movement leader] Hale's racist messages." In 2002, the church, represented by Kirkland & Ellis, won an appeals court ruling, and further in 2003 obtained a district judge's ruling of $1,000 per day fine to be applied against the Creativity Movement group, because that group's websites still came up in Yahoo and other internet searches in violation of the trademark ruling. The substantial legal proceedings around the trademark concluded with a 7th Circuit Appeals Court in 2002; there was a routine denial of further appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.
  • Citizens Against Hate, Nicole Nicholes, December 4, 2005 summarizes the trademark litigation... "This set the wheels in motion and caused Hale to seek the murder of Judge Joan Lefkow, the judge in the case. During that case, it was also determined that many "Creators" could be held responsible for the hefty fines that were imposed. Many of the members ran for cover as they didn't want to be responsible for paying the price of their involvement. .. That is a brief summary of a very dynamic laden situation with more twists and turns than a coal mine."
  • The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) through Chicago Regional Director Lonnie Nasatir recognized the Foundation stating, "The recent trial and conviction of Bill White here in Chicago for his threats against the jury foreperson in the Matthew Hale trial gave us reason to consider the long and tangled web of events that ultimately led to this point. This inevitably included the work of you and your colleagues in defending your legal rights resulting eventually in the dismantling of what was, as you know, then the second largest neo-Nazi organization in the United States. Your efforts have had a positive ripple effect ever since then and the absence of this group has clearly enhanced the TE-TA-MA Foundation's stated goal of pursuing universal tolerance and social harmony…."
  • On January 9, 2003, Matthew F. Hale was arrested and charged with attempting to direct security chief Anthony Evola to murder judge Joan Lefkow. Hale was found guilty of four of five counts (one count of solicitation of murder and three counts of obstruction of justice) on April 26, 2004; in April 2005, he was sentenced to 40 years in a Federal penitentiary.
  • According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), "After Hale was convicted of soliciting the murder of a federal judge in 2004 — and the group was ordered to change its name because of a ruling in a copyright [SIC - trademark] infringement trial — the once-formidable outfit now known as the Creativity Movement all but collapsed, leaving only weak remnants."
  • "Further SPLC states "..by far the most important threat to WCOTC came from a trademark complaint that was brought against Hale and the WCOTC by the TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation, a peace-loving, multicultural church in Oregon that supports "the Family unification of Mankind."
  • "Dec. 2, 2009, the US District Court, Northern District of California, reviewed issues directly relating to religious freedoms, constitutional issues, citing the Trademark Litigation. "Plaintiff identifies himself as a member of World Church of the Creator ("WCOTC"). (Compl. at 3.) In 2002, WCOTC lost a trademark-infringement lawsuit to TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family of URI, Inc., prohibiting WCOTC from continuing to use the name World Church of the Creator. TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation — Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of Creator, 297 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2002). Defendants assert that WCOTC subsequently changed its name to "Creativity." (MSJ at 4.) ... For consistency, the Court will refer in this order to plaintiff's alleged religion as "Creativity," to the associated overarching organization as the "Creativity Movement," and to Creativity's adherents as "Creators."... " Here, as discussed above, this Court has found plaintiff's evidence insufficient to support a finding that his beliefs are based on anything other than "purely secular considerations." See id. Accordingly, as plaintiff cannot meet his burden with respect to the issue of whether Creativity is a religion,..." Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge.
  • US Federal Circuit Court review of "What Constitutes a Religion?" yields evidence of another "ripple effect" originating within the trademark litigation. HALE v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, (D CO, March 28, 2018) "...Creativity Movement [fka World Church of the Creator] is not a religion for purposes of the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution and RFRA." pg. 22 of 33, f. Conclusion; Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger.

Discuss expanded treatment on Trademark and "ripple effects"?

• One thing we want to avoid is coining a new term about "ripple effects". If there is a general issue about this, where else in Wikipedia can this be mentioned, and link to this article as an example? --Doncram (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

“Ripple Effect” is not a new term coined here. “…Ripple Effect is recognized within many disciplines, scientific, legal, Sociology, and consciousness. A Google search yields 7,610,000 results. https://dictionary.cambridge.org “a situation in which one event produces effects which spread and produce further effects:” https://www.merriam-webster.com “a spreading, pervasive, and usually unintentional effect or influence.”

Trademark litigation and "ripple effect" clarifications relative, sequence, content, bullet point sections above.

The first three inset bullet points • 1-3 Initial Event The parties, reason for filing the Trademark Litigation, brief tracking of multiple US Federal Courts. US Circuit, US 7th Appeals Court, US Supreme Court reviewing the issues during 2002 - 2003, with references, “a brief summary of a very dynamic laden situation with more twists and turns than a coal mine."[18] There are literally thousands of pages, of original source material that could be used to describe the Trademark Litigation, the Initial Event. The who, what, when, how many pages, exhibits reviewed by the courts, see [3]PACER: Court Docket:

Bullet point • 4th A reference dated February 4, 2011, nine years after the Initial Event, recognizing the reality of the “Ripple Effect.” "..Anti-Defamation League see Reference 9. above, ADL letter to Foundation acknowledging what it takes to stand up to bullies, and their threats, discerned the reality of “a spreading, pervasive, and usually unintentional effect or influence.”

Bullet points 5 - 9; Reference evidenced, events, chronologically, of the reality of the “Ripple Effect.”

Any editor deleting, or modifying content relative the Initial Event, or it’s subsequent “Ripple Effect” realities, owes the readers of Wikipedia sufficient effort to understand the scope of the subject they are addressing. The courts review of issues involved in the Initial Event, include US Constitutional Rights of every Citizen. The “Ripple Effects” bear witness to the responsibility and authority of the Judicial System of the United States of America.

Please take the time to review the Opinions, Judgments that summarize these events. Federal Judges, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1059393.html “…Mchael Stephen Kanne ; https://openjurist.org/297/f3d/662/te-ta-ma-truth-foundation-family-of-uri-inc-v-world-church-of-the-creator “…Frank H. Easterbrook ; and https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1301994.html by Judges POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and EVANS, Circuit Judges Decision of May 30,2006 “Ripple Effect” “Matthew Hale was convicted after a jury trial on two counts of obstructing justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1503, and one count of soliciting a crime of violence, id. § 373, in connection with his resistance to a judgment entered against his white supremacist organization by United States District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow and his involvement in a plot to have the judge murdered.   Hale was sentenced to a total of 480 months' imprisonment.”

Members, Officers, Attorneys and the Judge, were subject to death threats, harassment during and after the Initial Event. There is considerably more to provide, knowledge that anyone can stand up to bullies and it often does more good than might be anticipated. We all need examples of doing the right thing. The alternative, that this was just another case relative trademark issues, is less than the mission of Wikipedia as I understand it. Michael S. Legions (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Another example of “Ripple Effect” within collective consciousness. Quote from The Constitution: A Documentary and Narrative History (1978) by Page Smith.

"...Mayflower Compact, Initial Event. "During the nineteenth century, when the Pilgrims were elevated to preeminent positions in the pantheon of American heroes and heroines, the Mayflower Compact was celebrated as the foundation stone of the federal Constitution and much scholarly effort was expended to prove that the document was the acorn from which grew the mighty oak of the federal Constitution. Since it is a paper of great directness, simplicity, and brevity, it might be well to quote it virtually verbatim:

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord, King James ... having undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutaly in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just and equall lawes, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for the generall good of the Colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness wherof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cap-Codd the 11. of November.... Ano: Dom. 1620."

“Happily for his own equanimity, the king remained quite oblivious to the existence of this insolent document which declared its purpose to be that of establishing "a civill body politick." He had far more important things on his mind. What is of primary concern to us about the Compact is the frame of mind, or kind of consciousness, that could conceive of such a statement. It is difficult to get ourselves into a frame of mind that will enable us to understand just how radical and unprecedented an event the drafting and signing of the Mayflower Compact was.”

“This is what was momentous about the Mayflower Compact; the fact that a handful of people, most of them with little or no formal education, did not hesitate to perform one of the most mysterious, powerful, and dramatic acts known to the species, to "convenant and combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick." The nineteenth-century historians and their followers were in a sense quite right in being amazed and awed by an event that we today take for granted.”

“It was an act bold to the point of recklessness, and in demonstrating this strange capacity to form new human combinations--new communities--and establish government to guide and control them, it did indeed anticipate the federal Constitution. It was the acorn of the new consciousness oak."

Initial Events, when "Aligned" in content, timing, of a higher authority, bring change, consciousness evolution. The Initial Event in this example has those elements, the short collective prayer, pledge, signatures, creating in man’s law a contract with God and the signers. The ripple effect is ongoing today, the date of this post, as the United States of America is being forced to review the founding principles and practices, the Constitution. The need to refine, improve, evolve as a nation, how we treat each other is today’s news, an effect of the Seed Atom Event. We as a nation have been Blessed and the Contract/Compact Amplified by Higher Authority. Blessings, authority and responsibility evolve together.

Sounds a lot like the Initial founding events of Wikipedia, ripple effects of refinement, large inclusive goals that continue to be refined through civil participation by everyone who chooses to enter the playing field of digital expression of knowledge to accomplish the Mission Goal. Michael S. Legions (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

External links

• External links were stripped down to include just:
  • Church Of The Creator®, official website
• The ones which were dropped are:
• Church Of The Creator® Youtube Channel
• Priesthood Melchizedek Channel YouTube
• Church Of The Creator® - Facebook
• COTC Melchizedek Community Of Light - Facebook
• Divine Right Order®, Divine Dispensation of 1969

Discuss external links?

References

The above is long but i hope will facilitate discussion. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think one thing that might help would be reworking that stuff into coherent prose rather than a bunch of bulleted lists, and filtering out the sources that are actually reliable. As it stands, we've got a mix of some secondary ones, a substantial number of primary ones, and then just some pure junk ones (Blogspot, anyone?). If someone besides the group itself has written up a reliable summary of their affiliations and beliefs, that would also be helpful. The existing stuff was way too much excess detail, and that resulted in it being rather incoherent. The trademark litigation is certainly a notable event in their history, but I don't think we need to do it to death in the article about the organization; just to mention that a different group misused the trademark, the effects that had on the organization, and the ultimate ruling in the organization's favor. I don't think that should take more than a paragraph or two to describe. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and far as external links, the general rule for an organization is one EL to the organization's official site. More than that is getting into promotion territory. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The link provided promotion goes to Wikipedia policy, “Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not” “This page in a nutshell: 1. The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere. 2. Although anyone can be an editor, Wikipedia's community processes and standards make it neither an anarchy, democracy, nor bureaucracy. 3. Wikipedia is not a place to promote things or publish your thoughts, and is not a website for personal communication, a freely licensed media repository, or a censored publication.” I see no statement, never more than one external link, or support the statements “the general rule for an organization is one EL to the organization's official site. More than that is getting into promotion territory.” Wikipedia Policy, in every instance of my limited exposure, encourages discernment, editors to step back and look at the overall intent, value of edits to users, including EL, even within the “is not” guidelines. As a religious analogy, Wikipedia Policy like the Bible, there is always a passage to support a specific action, to say what is right or wrong, and in the extreme to justify killing someone else in the name of God.” Radical warring factors often claim more authority, more “Grok” on a given subject than everyone else. Wikipedia Policy seems to understand that, encouraging discernment, how does the policy apply to the specific instance, subject, page, before taking action. W-internal and external Links Policy for consideration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_link states: “Both internal and external links allow users of the website to navigate to another web page or resource. This is the basis or founding idea or principal behind the internet. That users can navigate from one resource to another by clicking on hyperlinks. Internal links help users navigate the same website, whereas external links take users to a different website. Both internal and external links help users surf the internet as well as having Search engine optimization value. Internal linking allows for good website navigation and structure and allows search engines to crawl or spider websites.” If Wikipedia goal is to provide knowledge to users, then hyperlinks must be reviewed to the standard of “Both internal and external links help users.” It is apparent, Doncram “...though sources independent of the church itself may be thin…” to first review the external links, see where they go, what they provide, its it helpful to the user to gain knowledge, or it is it promoting something or violating Wikipedia Policy on some other basis.” When I search other similar organizations, old and new, big and small I find many articles with more than one external link on their Wikipedia article pages. Michael S. Legions (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

We are not going to have a go at wikilawyering here. Please see appropriate external links, potentially appropriate ones, and most importantly, inappropriate ones. One link to the organization's site is sufficient; you can link whatever else you like from there. If you see other pages with an inappropriate laundry list of links, please feel free to clean those up too, but other stuff is not a valid reason to include them here, it's a valid reason to exclude them there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

multiple accounts and editing policy

Hey, there have been several accounts editing this article, which from context seem likely to be related. To any and all of these accounts/users, please be careful and be aware that there is very strict Wikipedia policy about the seen-to-be-great-sins practices of wp:Sock puppetry and related wp:Meat puppetry. Basically, you should only edit using one account, and you should be very careful to avoid appearance that you have "stacked" a discussion or tried to "edit war" by using multiple accounts of your own to make it seem like multiple independent persons were editing. Also, to some degree it is okay to inform potentially interested other persons to come to Wikipedia, and for them to open accounts and participate in some issue, but that is not great. Beware, there are administrators with high powers ("bureaucrats") who can analyze editors' connections and determine with great accuracy whether they are coming from the same place (although sometimes it is fine and good for two persons to edit occasionally from the same connection) or otherwise determine they are not independent. And this is treated as about the most serious transgression in Wikipedia (though frankly in my opinion there are much worse things) and editors involved can be banned permanently. I think it is just that this can be detected/proven by technical means, while other issues with editors are more amorphous so treated less seriously.

Specifically, User:Michael S. Legions is an editor who has properly acknowledged association with the subject church, addressing Wikipedia policy about wp:COI Conflict of Interest (which does not prohibit editing, but requires acknowledging association and cooperating with non-COI editors). This editor has been corresponding with me at User talk:Doncram#Church of the Creator article and should also be participating in discussion on this Talk page. Some other accounts, including User:Green Irish Eyes and User:W L Ishim and User:Palladintruth, have contribution history showing they only edited at this Church of the Creator article, so some might label them as "single purpose accounts" (wp:SPA) and want to completely dismiss/discount their views. I tend to assume these are somewhat related parties, or perhaps fewer parties who have forgotten their account names or lost their password and just found it easier to create a new account to make edits. I think there is nothing nefarious here, it is just a few persons not familiar with Wikipedia's strict policies here. But anyhow, please do take care to edit only from one account per person, and if you do have association with this Church of the Creator please do disclose that somehow, perhaps by mention here on this Talk page or by a statement at your own User page or User Talk page. Else you risk getting shut down completely [i.e. any primary account plus "sock-puppets" would be shut down, and you would then not be able to participate at all from any account]. --Doncram (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Michael S. Legions acknowledged seeing this post, by a followup at my own Talk page. I rather assume the others are not online, maybe were one-time editors, so I don't much expect anything further, i think this might now be a closed issue. --Doncram (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Authority control / Library of Congress error, another horrible situation

In this diff editor Bellerophon5685 added {{Authority control}} in what I think should have been an innocuous edit. However, it brings up horrible problem again, that the legitimate Church of the Creator in Oregon is incorrectly identified again as the horrid white supremacist "church" in Illinois. Wikipedia editors, cumulatively, were awful to the Oregon organization for a number of years by meanly enforcing a redirect from the title of the church to the article about the evil white supremacist organization. That was really mean, it was out of evil delight in perverse Wikipedia rule-playing. I eventually learned of this and helped out by creating and defending a separate article on the Oregon church in order to eliminate the redirect.

I'm not familiar with "authority control" stuff, but the linked Library of Congress page at https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n82083781.html seems to indicate that the Library of Congress itself accepts/assigns the name "Church of the Creator" to the evil White Supremacist organization that illegally used the name for a period, until the legitimate nice Church of the Creator won court cases that protected their name. This seems like an issue going outside of Wikipedia. Speculating, perhaps the Library of Congress works on matters like this somewhat like Wikipedia, in taking the best info available as true until proven otherwise. There must be some way to work with Library of Congress librarians, to point them to the facts of the lawsuit differentiating the good vs. bad organizations and the clarity that the name belongs to the good one. And the Library of Congress record needs to be fixed.

Bellepheron5685, could you please shed further light and advise? --Doncram (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)